Delhi High Court
Aya Singh vs N.D.P.L. & Another on 26 February, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
16.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2668/2008
AYA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
versus
N.D.P.L. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. K. Datta & Mr. Manish Srivastava,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 26.02.2010
1. The petitioner, who is 82 years old, it is stated has been wrongly saddled
with the bill of Rs.1,28,764/- on the ground of Dishonest Abstraction of
Electricity (DAE).
2. The inspection report dated 19th December, 2007 shows as many as eight
persons were using electricity through one meter having a sanctioned load of 1
KW. Name and details of the said persons along with electrical appliances found
installed in their premises have been mentioned in the inspection report. It was
also found that the meter box seals were tampered and the meter was also found
to be working slow by 22.83%.
3. On the basis of the inspection report, a speaking order was passed and at
that time one Mr. Nandlal had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The
petitioner now disputes and denies that he knows any person by the name Mr.
Nandlal and states that no such person was authorized to appear. After the
speaking order was passed, a bill for Rs.1,28,764/- was raised. The petitioner
thereafter approached the respondents and a settlement agreement it is stated was
signed. The respondent has placed on record copy of the said settlement. As per
the said settlement, the respondent-discom agreed to reduce the impugned bill by
50% and the petitioner and others called upon to make payment of Rs.62,200/-.
This aspect was specifically recorded and mentioned in the order dated 24th
April, 2009. This order also records that the petitioner was directed to deposit
Rs.40,000/-, which was not deposited. By order dated 24th April, 2009, the
WPC No.2668/2008 Page 1
matter was earlier referred to Continuous Lok Adalat to explore possibility of a
negotiated settlement. As per the report received, parties have not been able to
arrive at negotiated settlement.
4. It is clear from the inspection report that meter was tampered with and
seals were found to be broken. It is also clear from the inspection report that
supply from the said meter was made to as many as eight persons including the
petitioner herein. The inspection report gives names of the said persons as well
as electrical appliances found in their premises. It is difficult to accept that the
inspection report, which is meticulously detailed, is incorrect or false. It is also
apparent that the matter was resolved and settled in the office of the respondent-
discom and the impugned bill was reduced from Rs.1,28,764/- to Rs.62,200/-.
The present writ petition has been filed by only Mr. Aya Singh, who was one the
person found to be illegally using the said electricity connection and indulging in
DAE. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of his old age. Even the
electricity connection is not in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of one
Smt. Saroj Puri. For non- payment of DAE bill, electricity supply through the
said meter has been disconnected. The writ petition has no merit and is
dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 26, 2010
VKR
WPC No.2668/2008 Page 2
